Academic Debate versus Personal Attack by PseudoArchaeologists

John Hoopes has this observation:

Underwater Wall off Ile de Sein, Brittany, 7000BP

                                                  .                                          

French marine archaeologists have discovered a large underwater stone wall off the coast of the Île de Sein, at the western tip of Brittany, dating to around 5,000 BC. Measuring approximately 120 metres in length, the wall is the largest underwater construction ever identified in France. When the wall was built it would have stood along the shoreline, between the high- and low-tide marks. Today, it lies beneath nine metres of water. Archaeologists believe it may have functioned either as a fish trap or as a dyke designed to protect against encroaching sea levels.

" The wall is on average 20 metres wide and two metres high. At regular intervals divers found large granite standing stones – or monoliths – protruding above the wall in two parallel lines. It is believed these were originally placed on the bedrock and then the wall built around them out of slabs and smaller stones. If the fish-trap hypothesis is the right one, then the lines of protruding monoliths would have also supported a "net" made of sticks and branches to catch fish as the tide retreated. With an overall mass of 3,300 tonnes, the wall must have been the work of a substantial settled community [...] "It was built by a very structured society of hunter-gatherers, of a kind that became sedentary when resources permitted. That or it was made by one of the Neolithic populations that arrived here around 5,000 BC," said archaeologist Yvan Pailler. "

The structure was first identified after local geologist Yves Fouquet examined high-resolution seabed charts produced using modern radar technology. Just off Sein, he noticed a 120-metre line blocking an underwater valley that could not have been natural. Initial archaeological dives took place in the summer of 2022, but detailed mapping had to wait until the following winter, when reduced seaweed growth improved visibility.

The Nazca “Tridactyl Mummies”: Institutional Context, Claims, and Archaeological Concerns

Since around 2016, a group of unusual mummified figures popularly referred to as the “Peruvian tridactyls” has circulated widely in alternative media, frequently framed as evidence of non-human or even extraterrestrial beings. These claims have attracted considerable public attention, but they sit in sharp tension with the assessments of mainstream archaeological, forensic, and bioanthropological experts.

The specimens most often cited in these discussions were reportedly delivered in 2019 to the Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga (UNSLG) in Ica, Peru, where some form of study has been ongoing since that time. Preliminary examinations and imaging have also been carried out by researchers or laboratories in several other countries, including France, Russia, Mexico, the United States, and Switzerland. Despite this international involvement, the research has largely remained outside established peer-reviewed academic channels.

In September and November 2023, two tridactyl specimens were presented in bizarre hearings before the Mexican Congress, and in November 2024, before the Peruvian Congress.

Discovery and Provenance

According to accounts provided by those promoting the finds, the mummies were discovered around 2015–2016 in a cave or tunnel system somewhere in the Nazca–Palpa region of southern Peru. This area is archaeologically significant, best known for the Nazca culture and the Nazca Lines. Crucially, however, the precise location of discovery has never been publicly disclosed, nor has any controlled archaeological excavation been documented. This absence of secure provenance is one of the central reasons archaeologists regard the specimens with deep skepticism.

Multiple reports indicate that the figures were obtained through looting rather than excavation. They are said to originate from a group of huaqueros (tomb raiders) operating out of Palpa. Thierry Jamin of the Inkari-Cusco Institute, himself involved in research on the objects, has stated that the individual leading the group, known publicly only as “Mario”, is a long-time looter known to regional authorities. If accurate, this context alone places the assemblage outside acceptable archaeological practice and raises serious ethical and legal concerns.

Number and Nature of the Specimens

Promoters of the tridactyl mummies have cited varying numbers, ranging from a dozen individuals to as many as 25 or 30 “beings” of different sizes. Images and scans circulated online show small humanoid figures with elongated skulls and three-fingered hands and feet, often coated in a white powdery substance (diatomaceous earth) that for some reason researchers have been reluctant to remove..

Peruvian forensic specialists and archaeologists, however, have repeatedly concluded that at least some of the seized specimens are dolls or figurines rather than intact mummies. Analyses conducted by Peru’s Institute for Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences found that certain examples were constructed from a mixture of human and animal bones, paper, and modern synthetic adhesives, assembled to create an artificial tridactyl appearance. DNA analysis of at least one hand reportedly indicated that it came from a male human.

Scientific Consensus versus Alternative Claims

The prevailing scientific consensus is that the tridactyl figures represent deliberate fabrications, likely incorporating looted human mummy parts. Several Peruvian mummy specialists have argued that real hands, feet, or other anatomical elements were modified (with bones rearranged or removed) and then  artificially coated with a white substance to conceal tool marks and joins. A collective statement by a group of Peruvian researchers condemned these practices, noting that they violate numerous national and international norms governing the treatment of human remains.

This position has been reinforced by the Peruvian World Congress on Mummy Studies, which has described the ongoing promotion of the objects as an “irresponsible organized campaign of misinformation.”

In contrast, a small group of researchers and media figures (most prominently Mexican journalist Jaime Maussan) maintain that the bodies are authentic and possibly represent a previously unknown non-human species. They cite CT scans, X-rays, and selective DNA analyses as evidence of anomalous features, such as unusual fingerprints or supposed metal implants. These claims, however, have not been substantiated through transparent methodologies or peer-reviewed publication, and they are generally dismissed by specialists in archaeology, forensic anthropology, and paleopathology.

Broader Implications

Beyond the question of authenticity, the Nazca tridactyl controversy highlights a recurring problem in archaeology: the damage caused by looting, sensationalism, and the circulation of uncontextualized remains. Whether assembled as hoaxes or misrepresented through speculative interpretation, the use of real human remains in this manner represents a serious ethical breach. It undermines scientific understanding of the past and contributes to the ongoing destruction of Peru’s archaeological heritage.

In this sense, the tridactyl mummies are less a mystery of unknown beings than a cautionary example of how archaeology can be distorted when provenance, peer review, and ethical standards are ignored.

British Adventurer Forged the Khufu Inscription in The Great Pyramid ?

 

On Dec 8, 2025, the Graham Hancock Official YouTube Channel (484K subscribers) released a heavily AI-bolstered 43minute video "documentary by Scott Creighton: " The Great Pyramid Hoax", that one day later achieved some 99,907 views. This seems largely to be a rehash and enlargement on the material already presented in a 2016 book: "The Great Pyramid Hoax: The Conspiracy to Conceal the True History of Ancient Egypt" that claims that the workgang and 'quarry' marks discovered on stones in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber by Colonel Vyse in 1837 were forged by Vyse. He claims that these are the only piece of evidence linking the structure to the 4th Dynasty king Khufu. According to the book's blurb:

" Proving Zecharia Sitchin’s claim that the quarry marks are forgeries and removing the only physical evidence that dates the Great Pyramid’s construction to the reign of Khufu, Creighton’s study strikes down one of the most fundamental assertions of orthodox Egyptologists and reopens long-standing questions about the Great Pyramid’s true age, who really built it, and why".

The film looks like an attempt to attract attention back to the issues that the book raised.

Hancock uses this text to help renew the attention:

"I have chosen to publish Scott Creighton's documentary on my Youtube channel, because I find the case he makes here persuasive with important new evidence that has not been addressed in the public debates thus far. Others are welcome to disagree and no comments will be deleted. Comments that consist of lazy and insulting outright rejections of Scott's case without giving any solid reasoning for the rejection are predictable: this is how archaeology's "debunking lobby" works. [my emphasis PMB] However, what we're really looking for from those who wish to "debunk" this video are comments, unpolluted by insults, slurs and smears, that offer fair, reasoned and constructive criticism of Scott's thesis. If you think he is wrong the least you can do is hear him out in full -- 42 minutes with no ads to slow down your viewing -- and then address the points he makes in this video with as much care and diligence as he has made them."

What is really indicative is that when you look at teh 5900+ comments under his video, not moree than 2% refer to the name Vyse, but a huge preponderance write insultingly on "Hawass" and "Dibble" (with of course the usual half-brain mocking/derogatory distortions of these people's names). There is not a single example of an archaeologist joining in the chorus and engaging there with the arguments.

On Twitter, Hancock (587.8K followers) has got 203.3K views of that post but so far only 76 replies. Again the usual pseudo-archy stuff, some hate-posts directed at archaeologists, some with the sender's own crackpot ideas and hypotheses. Again, as far as I can see no archaeologists.


See the post: How Likely is it that Colonel Howard Vyse Forged the Khufu Inscription in The Great Pyramid? below.

How Likely is it that Colonel Howard Vyse Forged the Khufu Inscription in The Great Pyramid ?

Anyone coming across the new video by Scott Creighton referred to above and wanted to check out the background can do a bit of Googling ("Googledebunking"), just a mouse-click away. There is a lot of information that can set these arguments in contexct.  Within about forty seconds into this, one can find an excellent, though pseudonymous, post made 4 years ago in the r/AskHistorians substack on Reddit that I think is a pretty good answer, and I reproduce it below (I have been unable to contact the author of this "in-depth and comprehensive" post).

It is written by a person or persons writing under the pseudonym 'mikedash' answers a question by user ParsleyLion 4 years ago "How likely is it that Colonel Howard Vyse forged the Khufu inscription in The Great Pyramid ? One wonders why in "researching the topic" Scott Creighton did not find this text, and head off some of the criticisms of the model he'd already presenetd in 2016, because as we shall see, 'mikedash's comments from 2021 are just as applicable to this fresh attempt to create an alternative picture. The post reads:

"Not remotely likely. The idea that the marks were forgeries was suggested by Zecharia Sitchin, in his pseudoscientific The Stairway to Heaven (1980), a book proposing that the pyramids were built by “ancient astronauts”, and it has recently been reiterated by Scott Creighton in his The Great Pyramid Hoax (2016). But, to be able to forge the quarry marks that Vyse discovered in the chambers he forced open above the Kings Chamber, he would have had to be able to read and write in hieroglyphics with a high degree of fluency – which he wasn't. The marks he found were carefully copied and sent back to the British Museum, where an Egyptologist named Samuel Birch actually made the translations. Creighton actually concedes this point, and admits that Sitchin's evidence was "eventually discredited...as a result his controversial allegation was soon dismissed, and many of those who had hitherto supported him quickly distanced themselves from the controversy."

Creighton has his own bit of skin in this game, let's not forget – his book offers as his qualification to write on this topic the fact that he is "the host of the Alternative Egyptology forum on AboveTopSecret.com". And while he attempts to resurrect Sitchin's claim, even he admits the need for special pleading – conceding that Vyse would have needed both "elementary knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language – and a little bit of luck." Given the general lack of evidence that Vyse was a forger, or under financial pressure in any way in 1836, that's just a terrible bit of argumentation.

I suppose that we ought to begin by asking just what it is that Creighton is saying here with his comment about a little luck. What he's actually suggesting is something very implausible, but which is fundamental to his argument. Pharaohs took five different names when they became ruler – the common name that we know them by today is only one of them, and Khufu's five regnal names were not actually all known or tabulated when Vyse was working at the pyramid. Yet several different names for him, some of them unknown at the time, but accurately given, are referenced in the graffiti he discovered. To explain this, Creighton posits that Vyse stumbled across some other inscriptions dating to Khufu's reign, written in hieratic script, which no other Egyptologist before or since has ever identified. He was able to read these inscriptions, and he used them to "lift" Khufu's other names for the purposes of his hoax – realising, with really quite remarkable foresight, that mere mention of the known name, Khufu, would not be sufficient to impress his future detractors, writing nearly two centuries hence. This unprecedented bit of supposed good fortune is the "little bit of luck" that Creighton refers to.

Next, it is worth remarking on a couple of complicating factors that further reduce the possibility of forgery. First, several of the marks that Vyse found are partially obscured – they were painted onto blocks that were then fitted in place, with other blocks positioned over them. Second, the marks discovered by Vyse, and reported by him, went well beyond hieroglyphics that can be used to establish who built the pyramid – as Lehner and Hawass note, they included elements such a "levelling lines, marks defining the axis of the chambers, directional notations and cubit measurements." There are dozens of them. Creighton and Stitchin don't actually allege that these marks were hoaxed by Vyse – they say he added his own marks, in the same sort of red ochre paint used 4,000 years earlier, in such a way that they were indistinguishable from the older lines. But this adds considerable complications which neither author properly addresses. How did Vyse contrive to make his marks look old, not fresh? If it's accepted that the builders did make some marks on the stones they used in the pyramid, why suggest they did not make the sort of quarry marks Vyse said he found, which, after all, have been pretty commonly found in other places since?

Third, as noted above, the "forgery", if that is what it was, would have been remarkably subtle for a man who had, after all, just physically blasted his way into the relieving chambers using gunpowder – only a single tiny cartouche mentioning the pharaoh Khufu's name was found, amidst a much larger number of work-gang names which used other variations of Khufu's royal names, rather than the name he is known by to us today. Fourth, Sitchin is the only person to suggest Vyse was under financial pressure to produce results at the time the discovery was made – actually, he did not have a patron to satisfy, and he self-funded the work he undertook. Fifth, the suggestion that the discovery of a few painted marks would actually have constituted astounding news to the people interested in the pyramid in the 1830s is false – the marks simply did not make much of an impact at the time, and were a long way short of what Vyse had actually been hoping to find when he started his blasting operations inside the pyramid: dramatic new hidden chambers packed with artefacts from Khufu's time. As a matter of fact, the marks that nowadays attract so much debate are barely mentioned in Vyse's own three-volume work on his "operations at Gizeh" – they appear, without real comment, in an engraving positioned in an appendix to the second volume! This was because they were not even properly translated until some years after Vyse published – the idea that the marks were a sensational discovery designed to generate immediate funding for further work at Giza, then, is an utter red herring.

Finally, Vyse's discoveries, which were made in 1836, are also totally consistent with the general style of quarry marks, made by the Egyptian labour gangs responsible for construction, that have been discovered in the nearly two centuries since he was at Giza. It's wildly implausible, in my view, that a man who was barely even an Egyptologist, in the modern sense of the term, could have been so subtle, so prescient, and so plain interested in such things as to forge a set of quarry marks so accurately in the middle 1830s.

Broadly, then, the argument followed here looks like something constructed in a manner precisely the opposite of the way any historical controversy ought really to be discussed. Sitchin and Creighton don't start with Vyse and a clear reason to presume there are problems with his evidence. Rather, they begin from the presumption that the pyramids were not built by the people the Egyptologists tell us they were. For their thinking to be correct, it is imperative to discredit the marks that he found – which rather clearly do show that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu's men. Therefore they devote huge efforts to trying to find reasons to doubt Vyse's testimony.

Sources

Howard Vyse, Operations Carried On at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837 (3 vols, Cambridge, 2015)

Mark Lehner and Zawi Hawass, Giza and the Pyramids (2017)"

I think that is a very clear, well-argued and supported explanation for why the idea that Colonel Vyse forged the Khufu inscriptions is extremely unlikely. It shows that the forgery hypothesis depends on a series of implausible assumptions: Vyse would have had to read and write hieroglyphs he demonstrably did not understand and imitate Old Kingdom quarry marks so convincingly that later Egyptologists found them entirely consistent with hundreds of similar marks discovered since. The writer also notes that Vyse had no evident motive. The pyramid had long been associated with Khufu anyway, Vyse was self-funded, not under pressure to produce sensational results. A crowning argument is that the marks themselves were not treated as a major discovery at the time.

In contrast, the mundane explanation that these were genuine work-gang inscriptions fits both the archaeological evidence and the historical record. Overall, the response shows that Sitchin and Creighton begin with the assumption that Egyptology must be wrong and then work backwards, stretching speculation far beyond what the evidence can reasonably bear.

 

The Date of the Great Pyramid Complex for Pseudoarchaeologists

                              The Giza Pyramids complex (Wikipedia)                    

It is simply NOT TRUE that the inscriptions in the relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid are the "only evidence" that the pyramid was built in the reign of Khufu. Even if we ignore their evidence, there is still a lot to support this.

The pyramid stratigraphically is earlier than the north enclosure wall of the Khafre pyramid complex, which is aligned on its southern side. The east wall of the Funerary temple of Khafre is aligned on the pyramid's west side. The line of tombs of the GIS cemetery (period: Khafre/ Menkaure?) are oriented on the pyramid's south side. 

During the time when the pyramid was under construction, clusters of mastabas for lesser royals and royal officials and dignitaries - all of which can be dated to specific reigns - were built around it (Reisner 1942 ; Porter and Moss 1974). They are formed by clusters of structures that were quite clearly laid out systematically, following an overall plan. In other words they are contemporary with other features that form an integral part of thayt layout.    Those tombs associated with Khufu cluster around the Great Pyramid in a way that demonstrates the close connection of their tombs with the pyramid.

The principal burial area Cemetery G 7000 occupied the Giza East Field, situated just east of the Great Pyramid and adjacent to the queens’ pyramids. Laid out along orderly streets and avenues, this cemetery formed an integrated complex. It contained the the tombs of Khufu's wives, sons, and daughters as well as officials of his reign. Some of the tombs were used for later members of the 4th dynasty and their officials. In the eastern Cemetery is the tomb of an official (wikipedia says 'Nykahap', but this is not traceable anywhere I could find - it is not in Reisner 1942) - a "priest of Khufu who presides over the pyramid Akhet-Khufu" [Horizon of Khufu]

On the pyramid’s western side, in the  Giza West Field, Khufu’s sons Wepemnofret and Hemiunu were interred in Cemeteries G 1200 and G 4000, respectively. The entire necropolis continued to expand during the 5th and 6th Dynasties.

                  Snnw-ka             

The tomb of Snnw-ka is located in the Western Cemetery at the Giza necropolis in Egypt. His tomb is known as Lepsius 21. Snnw-ka held significant titles, including "Chief of the Settlement and Overseer of the Pyramid City of Akhet-Khufu" . The "Pyramid City of Akhet-Khufu" clearly refers to the area and workforce settlement associated with the construction of the Great Pyramid. A painted limestone statue of Snnw-ka (also known as Irukakhufu) in the form of a seated scribe was discovered within the serdab (a sealed chamber for the statue of the deceased) of his mastaba tomb during excavations in the mid-1950s. This statue is at the moment on display at the Cairo International Airport Museum in Terminal 3.

The Giza cemeteries mentioned above are also the provenance of a series of distinctive slab-stelae,, all of which date to the reign of Khufu (Der Manuelian 2003).

Note there are very few tombs in the Giza cemetery that can be linked with individuals that died during the reign of Khufu's predecessor Sneferu.* 

There therefore seems very little doubt, taking the evidence of the 'horizontal stratigraphy' (spatial layout) of these cemeteries that the Great Pyramid was an integral part of a funerary complext that can only be dated to the reign of Khufu. If some pseudoarchaeological enthusiast wants to suggest that these tombs were added to a pre-existing structure (or three pyramids in an "Orion-line") let us see them break down into phases based on the actual stratigraphy of teh remains: why would the Khufu-tombs cluster in one group of cemeteries, and the Khafre ones in another?  Because the logic of teh Great Pyramid being built first together with the cemeteries that clearly relate to it, to which was later added the Khafre pyramid and its own cemetery and enclosure, really seems the much better explanation of the actual evidence attained from centruries of investigatiuon and publication. Let the pseudos READ the publications. 

References 

• Reisner, George Andrew, 'A History of the Giza Necropolis' Volume I. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1942.

Porter, Bertha and Moss, Rosalind L. B. 1974, 'Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings'. Volume III. Memphis. Part I. Abû Rawâsh to Abûṣîr. 2nd edition, revised and augmented by Jaromír Málek, The Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Peter Der Manuelian 2003, 'Slab Stelae of the Giza Necropolis' New Haven and Philadelphia (Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 7).

 

*Tombs at Giza related to Sneferu's time
Hemiunu: Grandson of Sneferu, overseer of royal works, and probable architect of Khufu's pyramid. His large tomb is at Giza (G4000).
Queen Hetepheres I: Wife of Sneferu and mother of Khufu; her shaft tomb (G7000x) at Giza contained significant funerary equipment.

Archaix: "Archaeology's Lies About the Age of Gobekli Tepe"

 Archaix   

The Ongoing Gobekli tepe Psyop

The 'experts' claim Gobekli and other tepe sites are dated circa 8000 BCE, but they completely ignore that effigies, architectural styles and pillars at Gobekli perfectly match other site around the world dated precisely at 2500-1800 BCE. In fact, further excavation has been halted because more and more they are uncovering evidence that Gobekli tepe isn't anywhere near as old as they claimed. Gobekli Tepe was same culture as Catal Huyuk, all the tepes and huyuk sites, with Jericho and the similarities to Easter Island can not be ignored. 3800-2300 BCE. The Sumerian E.DINs were places man was banished from. That history began in 3895 BCE with the Adam and Eve Genesis reset, a worldwide destruction that sent mankind back to Year One. The tepes, like Gobekli tepe, are located where the story began. The academic claim that the builders suddenly buried their own sites is ridiculous. Gobekli Tepe, all the Tepe and Huyuk sites were buried in a Phoenix catastrophe.

His video "Gobekli Tepe: A 70 Year Old Lie Became a 12,000 Year Old Truth" ( Archaix Jan 30, 2023)

and the dating? Here's what he claims: 

"We are told that Gobekli Tepe in Turkey dates to about 9500 BC to 8200 BC. We’re told that it’s old because it was underground and that it dates to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. That sounds really impressive.

Now, for those who don’t know, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic is a term invented by Kathleen Kenyon. She believed she came from a monkey, so Kathleen Kenyon, when she found that the earliest levels of Jericho did not have pottery shards (she found this out around 1952 to 1954), coined the term “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” for what she found at Jericho’s ruins.

And then the scientific establishment overlaid her new system and description over the entire world, from one little excavation at Jericho. So the new dating assumption over the entire topography of the world was established by the established scientific community. Now that they did that, any archaeological sites that do not yield pottery shards are to be dated at 9500 BC to 8200 BC. My friends, that’s how simple it is. That is exactly how they got the Pre-Pottery Neolithic model. It’s just weird".

What is weird is that he should think (and presume to misinform his readers) that this is how the site is dated.  

This really needs to be seen together with this video: 'A Total Dismantling of Hancock's 9600 BCE Atlantis Dating' (Jul 21, 2023):

This really takes the cake, views of how to read the King Lists (and whether one COULD expect them to tally with the Hebrew Scriptures) have really moved on since the eighteenth century "sources" he cites. As has our understanding of the Egyptians' understanding of the calendar. The video is excruciatingly repetetive.